Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli professor of world history and a best-selling author. He lives in the moshav (agricultural cooperative) of Mesilat Zion (founded on Bayt Mahsir, a “depopulated” Palestinian village). He is remarkable not only because of the breadth of his view of history but for his attempt to ground his history in biological science.

Harari published Sapiens in Hebrew in 2011 and it has since been translated into English, making for a perfect airport paperback. The opening flap breathlessly proclaims: “I encourage all of us, whatever our beliefs, to question the basic narratives of our world, to connect past developments with present concerns, and not to be afraid of controversial issues.” The book is adorned with the most prestigious of blurbs: Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Daniel Kahneman, Chris Evans (an establishment historian specializing in the Third Reich), Jared Diamond (a Jewish author who in his famous Guns, Germs, and Steel simultaneously claimed that race played no role in civilizational differences and that Stone Age Papua-New-Guineans are more intelligent than Europeans). Sapiens has over 4,000 customer reviews on Amazon and has been promoted by influential billionaires such as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

All that is enough to make one suspicious, but Sapiens is in fact a very interesting book. And were it not for a catastrophic chapter denying regional human evolution and attributing all racial inequalities to discrimination, I would say this is a good book. Harari provides a stimulating overview of the biological and social changes in human life over the last 200,000 years, a withering critique of egalitarian liberalism as fundamentally in denial about human biological nature, a positive account of the European empires’ massive contribution to science and human development, and even a rather fair and nuanced account of German National Socialism.

This book has a dark side however. Harari is an advocate not just of empire, but of world-empire, and his work is ultimately an apology for a technologically-advanced world dominated by a small, rootless international elite.

Reconstruction of Homo rudolfensis (a similar image appears in Sapiens)

Harari’s book seeks to ground human history in light of evolutionary theory and biological science. Human beings have been hunter-gatherers for 200,000 years, farmers for 10,000 years, and (post-)industrial workers for less than 200 years. Our psychological hardware is therefore defined first and foremost by what was adaptive in prehistoric tribal societies of hunter-gatherers. Harari covers humans’ development as bipeds, cooks, socio-linguistic creatures, and much else, with an impressive breadth of scope.

Harari is often refreshingly realistic. Hunter-gatherers may have been healthier in terms of diet and lifestyle than their agricultural descendants, but they were by no means peaceful: “Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark” (19). Human beings are furthermore instinctively ethnocentric: “Homo sapiens evolved to think of people as divided into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ was the group immediately around you, whoever you were, and ‘them’ was everyone else” (190). Harari presents much evidence for humans’ constant competition for status within societies and for tremendous violence between societies.[1] Europe’s twentieth century was not, in fact, particularly violent by historical standards (rather, I would argue that the twentieth century came to seem extraordinarily violent as Westerners have grown extraordinarily wimpish).

Harari often amusingly skewers the left. “Don’t believe tree-huggers who claim our ancestors lived in harmony with nature,” for the expansion of humans in various continents coincides quite perfectly with the extermination of local megafauna (82). He also remarks on the current obsession with climate change: “It’s common today to explain anything and everything as the result of climate change, but the truth is that earth’s climate never rests” (73).

Harari strongly emphasizes the regionalization and recentness of human evolution up to but not including Homo Sapiens. Multiple human species emerged in different continents over the past 2 million years:

Since survival in the snowy forests of northern Europe required different traits than those needed to stay alive in Indonesia’s steaming jungles, human populations evolved in different directions. The result was several distinct species to each of which scientists have assigned a pompous Latin name. (6)

But all the rivals to Sapiens (Neanderthalensis, Erectus, Soloensis, Floresiensis) were exterminated and/or replaced by us, sometimes as late as 10,000 years ago.

Harari presents a loose definition of “species” as any group of animals which tends to breed only among their own. A recent study found that a new species of Galapagos finches can develop in as little as two generations, because the finches tend to reproduce only with birds sharing the same shaped beak. This means that hybridized finches, which might occasionally be produced due to the migration of males into new populations, would then mate only among themselves and form a new, perfectly identifiable species.[2]

Harari believes that Sapiens, which emerged 150,000 years ago, has been a relatively unremarkable hominid species for most of its existence. That is, until the so-called “Cognitive Revolution” which is supposed to have happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago. This biological revolution entailed significant changes in human social and cognitive abilities, including speech and imagination, which would have given Sapiens uniquely powerful abilities of social cooperation and cultural adaptation. These fundamental skills, we are led to believe, allowed Sapiens to expand out of Africa, exterminating virtually all forms of large flightless animals along the way, including all other hominids.

So far, so good. However, Harari simultaneously states that there has been no significant regionalized human evolution since the expansion out of Africa 45,000 years ago. He claims that “the biological distinctions between different groups of Homo sapiens are, in fact, negligible,” and that therefore these cannot explain social differences between ethnic groups (161). He also specifically says: “Between black and whites there are some objective biological differences, such as skin color and hair type, but there is no evidence that the differences extend to intelligence or morality” (152).

In fact, mainstream scientists recognize that human regional evolution over the last 45,000 years has been sufficient to produce meaningfully different physical features (as recognized byforensic science), health factors (as recognized by the medical profession), and sporting ability between racial groups.[3] Thus, Harari and other blank-slatists are effectively claiming countless human organs and muscles have undergone significant change due to regional human evolution with the single exception of . . . the brain, the single most important human organ insofar as this distinguishes us from non-sentient animals and defines us as social and cultural beings. This does not seem credible. The theory seems to be that the organ that gave rise to the cognitive revolution as the result of natural selection somehow managed to avoid natural selection in the subsequent 45,000 years despite confronting very different natural and socio-cultural environments in different parts of the world. A Gouldian miracle!

Harari’s narrative also strikes me as internally incoherent on this mark. The Cognitive Revolution is supposed to have happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago, that is to say, it ended after the supposed expansion of human beings out of Africa which Harari claims happened 45,000 years ago. This implies that 15,000 years of Cognitive Revolution would have occurred when human evolution was regionalized, which would result in regionally-differentiated populations with different cognitive abilities and temperaments. What’s more, the Cognitive Revolution is supposed to have occurred over a period of 40,000 years, which implies that massive evolutionary change in humans can take place over such a short period. Human beings have been inhabiting different regions of the Earth for at least 45,000 years, a comparable period, with limited gene flow between regions. This implies that it is highly likely that there would be regionally-differentiated populations — differentiated in both their bodies and brains — evolving according to local selection pressure, which was very different “in the snowy forests of northern Europe [and] Indonesia’s steaming jungles.” Harari seems to be completely unaware of his contradictions.

One can debate these complex issues, but for Harari to say there is “no evidence” for the opposing side is simply an outrageous falsehood that dismisses over a century of scientific study. There is a mountain of historical, social, psychometric, and genetic evidence for regionalized human evolution and differences in cognition and temperament. Brain shape itself has been found to be highly predictive of racial ancestry!

Harari however does imply that regional racial differences would exist if Sapiens had interbred with other hominid species (the so-called Interbreeding vs. Replacement debate):

A lot hinges on this debate. From an evolutionary perspective, 70,000 years is a relatively short interval. If the Replacement Theory is correct, all living humans have roughly the same genetic baggage, and racial distinctions among them are negligible. But if the Interbreeding Theory is right, there might well be genetic differences between Africans, Europeans, and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years. This is political dynamite, which could provide material for explosive racial theories. (17)

A reconstruction of a Neanderthal child (the image also appears in Sapiens).

The Interbreeding Hypothesis is now widely accepted. Estimates suggest that 1–3% of Eurasian DNA is Neanderthal and up to 3–5% of Melanesan DNA. This would however by no means be the only source of regional genetic differences.

Elsewhere, Harari recognizes that recent evolution may be quick, as when he argues that civilization has led to dysgenic pressures (without using the term):

There is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. Survival in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone. When agriculture and industry came along people could increasingly rely on the skills of others for survival, and new “niches for imbeciles” were opened up. You could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker. (55)

Harari elsewhere points out the maladaptive nature of childless elites, such as “the Catholic priesthood, Buddhist monastic orders, and Chinese eunuch bureaucracies” (37), and pokes fun at the Pope for being a curiously barren “alpha male.”

From Biohistory to Biopolitics

We can salute Harari for seriously seeking to ground the social sciences, including history and politics, in biology, which is after all the foundation of physical human existence. Harari writes that: “Biology sets the basic parameters for the behavior and the capacities of Homo sapiens. The whole of history takes place within the bounds of this biological arena” (43).

The Cognitive Revolution, Harari argues, meant that culture could now have a massive role in human development. This was a huge evolutionary advantage, because it meant that human societies could experiment with new forms of social organization through cultural change, rather than solely through slow genetic change. With the Cognitive Revolution and the rise of culture, human development became not only biological, but also historical. Harari wisely cautions however: “This does not mean that Homo sapiens and human culture became exempt from biological laws” (42).

Harari argues that every society is constrained by a particular “horizon of possibilities”:

A “horizon of possibilities” means the entire spectrum of beliefs, practices, and experiences that are open before a particular society, given its ecological, technological, and cultural limitations. Each society and each individual usual explore only a tiny fraction of their horizon of possibilities. (51)

This seems to me to be a very fine definition, though we must add the biological limitations that humans face, which also differ according to a society’s gene pool.

Against Liberal Equality

This grounding in biological reality leads Harari to a full-throated attack on modern liberalism as an ideology. Harari argues, I think rightly, that human societies are held together by shared myths, taking the example of the hierarchic Code of Hammurabi and the egalitarian Declaration of Independence: “It is easy for us to accept that the division of people into ‘superiors’ and ‘commoners’ is a figment of the imagination. Yet the idea that all humans are equal is also a myth” (122).

Harari then mercilessly skewers the Declaration of Independence:

According to the science of biology, people were not “created.” They evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be “equal.” . . . However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation, and souls, what does it mean that all people are “equal”? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. (121–22)

Harari remarks that there is “no such things as rights in biology” (123) and rewrites Jefferson’s famous Declaration into a biologically-accurate parody:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure. (123)

Harari then backtracks slightly, observing that a society needs myths, not necessarily accurate ones, to hold together. But do false values, whether incoherent or not in line with reality, not lead a society to perdition?

National Socialism as an “Evolutionary Humanism”

Harari’s grounding of his history and politics in biology leads him to make a surprisingly balanced and nuanced appraisal of German National Socialism. Harari describes all modern ideologies (again, I believe rightly) as in effect secular religions and variants of humanism: liberal humanism (liberalism), socialist humanism (communism), and evolutionary humanism (National Socialism and, presumably, various eugenic ideologies). Liberalism and communism were however tainted by unscientific egalitarian assumptions inherited from Christianity. Harari says:

The only humanist sect that has actually broken loose from traditional monotheism is evolutionary humanism, whose most famous representatives are the Nazis. What distinguished the Nazis from other humanist sects was a different definition of “humanity,” one deeply influenced by the theory of evolution. In contrast to other humanists, the Nazis believed that humankind is not something universal and eternal, but rather a mutable species that can evolve or degenerate. Man can evolve into superman, or degenerate into a subhuman.

The main ambition of the Nazis was to protect humankind from degeneration and encourage its progressive evolution. (258)

The Nazis did not loathe humanity. They fought liberal humanism, human rights, and Communism precisely because they admired humanity and believed in the great potential of the human species. But following the logic of Darwinian evolution, they argued that natural selection must be allowed to weed out unfit individuals and leave only the fittest to survive and reproduce. By succoring the weak, liberalism and Communism not only allowed unfit individuals to survive, they actually gave them the opportunity to reproduce, thereby undermining natural selection. (261)

Harari then quotes, with no sign of disapproval, a National-Socialist-era biology textbook on the inseparability of life and struggle:

Biology not only tells us about animals and plants, but also shows us the laws we must follow in our lives, and steels our wills to live and fight according to these laws. The meaning of life is struggle. Woe to him who sins against these laws. (262)

Harari then reproduces the textbook’s quotation from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “The person who attempts to fight the iron logic of nature thereby fights the principles he must thank for his life as a human being. To fight against nature is to bring about one’s own destruction” (262).

It is striking that of the three humanisms proposed — liberal, egalitarian, and evolutionary — Harari is clearly advocating for the latter, despite the association with National Socialism. Harari only discretely observes that National Socialism exaggerated the genetic differences between human beings, on which we would have to partially agree.

It is also noteworthy that Harari cogently summarizes Nordic and Aryan theories (259, 155), and notes that National Socialist racial and eugenic ideas were for the most part well within the scientific mainstream of the 1930s. Harari eloquently concludes:

A huge gulf is opening between the tenets of liberal humanism and the latest findings of the life sciences, a gulf we cannot ignore much longer. . . . Our judicial and political systems largely try to sweep such inconvenient discoveries under the carpet. But in all frankness, how long can we maintain the wall separating the department of biology from the departments of law and political science? (263)

Harari’s Bizarre Blank-Slatism

Sapiens’ Chapter 8, “There Is No Justice in History,” is dedicated to unequal outcomes between ethnic groups. We discover the usual blank-slatist excuses and even a basically “social constructivist” interpretation of gender norms. The contrast with the rest of the book could not be more startling. This chapter is one-sided, old-fashioned, and simplistic.

Harari’s blank-slatism even extends to social class. He claims, like a Marxist professor and without providing any citation:

It’s a proven fact that most rich people are rich for the simple reason that they were born into a rich family, while most poor people will remain poor throughout their lives simply because they were born into a poor family. (152–53)

This is simply a ludicrous claim in modern societies, characterized by mass education and the elimination of formal caste barriers, not to mention the data from behavioral genetics. Modern Western societies tend to be reasonably porous and meritocratic, as a result of which individuals tend, over the generations, to rise or fall in the social system according to their temperament and abilities (above all their intelligence).[4] Harari makes only the slightest nod to the role of “natural abilities” in determining social outcomes and implies these are overwhelmed by unequal nurturing and discrimination (153–54).

Harari devotes considerable attention to inequality between American Whites and Blacks, mostly ignoring inequalities between other groups (such as Asians’ and Jews’ having more wealth and, in many areas, more elite representation relative to Whites). As mentioned above, Harari claims that while Blacks and Whites may have evolved different appearance, health outcomes, and so on, their brains were miraculously protected from such selective pressure.

Harari is then reduced to explaining away the Black-White gap in America by an unupdated version of Gunnar Myrdal’s 1944 “Vicious Circle” hypothesis: Blacks underperform relative to Whites purely because of the self-reinforcing cycle of discrimination and poverty.[5] This hypothesis would be a bit more persuasive if there had been a meaningful reduction in the Black-White gap in the last 50 years. After all, since the 1960s, we have witnessed desegregation, an “affluent society” of historically unprecedented wealth, the welfare state, and “positive discrimination” (“Affirmative Action”) in favor of Blacks and other underperforming minorities. Yet, strikingly, there has been, on the whole, no significant reduction in the Black-White gap in terms of educational performance, wealth, or criminality. This strongly suggests factors other than White discrimination are at work. I suggest that Black advancement has also been retarded by social liberalism, notably due to the collapse of the Black family and to integration’s de facto being a brain drain, leading many Black neighborhoods to collapse due to their being deprived of a native Black middle-class leadership.

Harari dismisses a century of evolutionary science and psychometric tests showing differences between Blacks and Whites as nothing more than a racially-motivated conspiracy to justify White supremacy:

But people don’t like to say that they keep slaves of a certain race or origin simply because it’s economically expedient. Like the Aryan conquerors of India, white Europeans in the Americas wanted to be seen not only as economically successful but also as pious, just, and objective. . . . Biologists argued that blacks are less intelligent than whites and their moral sense less developed. Doctors alleged that blacks live in filth and spread diseases — in other words, they are a source of pollution. (157)

On the latter point, Harari notes later these scientists were right in observing higher rates of infection among Blacks, but he feels the need to psycho-pathologize this utterly legitimate observation and concern.[6]

Harari is only very slightly more open to recognizing biology’s role in observed social differences between men and women. He rightly says: “Since patriarchy is so universal, it cannot be the product of some vicious circle that was kick-started by a chance occurrence” (171–72). Harari is apparently unaware of the similar universality of the Black-White gap (or indeed of the gaps between Blacks and other groups, such as Indians or Chinese . . .), which is visible just about everywhere where the two groups coexist: namely France, Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, etc.[7]

Even concerning men and women, Harari argues gender roles (such as a female penchant for child-rearing and a male one for aggression) are essentially socially constructed. He weirdly even downplays physical differences between men and women: “There are also many women who can run faster and lift heavier weights than many men” (172). This certainly has not stopped more and more men claiming to be “transsexual women” from participating in women’s sporting events and annihilating the competition with their male bodies.[8] I suggest that it would be more accurate to say that men and women have different propensities due to millions of years of very distinct reproductive strategies, and that these can be magnified or partially suppressed through culture. (I would add that culture should, rather than seeking to mindlessly iron out differences, try to encourage complementary gender norms which are conducive to both individual happiness and the well-being of the species.)

Harari claims our concept of what is “natural” stems from arbitrary Christian theology and thus: “There is little sense . . . in arguing that the natural function of women is to give birth, or that homosexuality is unnatural” (166). This is very questionable. From a Greek philosophical, and in particular Aristotelian, perspective, that which is “natural” is that which enables a thing to fulfill its nature and potential. If the human race is to exist and thrive, women (and indeed ideally the most gifted women) must bear children, and to that extent it is natural and good that they do so. Men should, for their part, provide women all the help possible in protecting and rearing these children.

[1] Harari gives a sympathetic account of the Aché people of Paraguay, who had a custom of murdering disabled or sickly members of the tribe, so that the entire tribe would still be mobile and survive (59—60). Comparisons with the Third Reich’s notorious T4 program came to mind.

[2] The analogy with certain human populations, using culture to form genetically-distinct populations by controlling reproduction, is fascinating. The genetic evidence suggests that the Ashkenazi Jewish population was formed, like the finches, by the migration of males and their intermarriage with indigenous females, and then culturally-mandated inbreeding, thus becoming a distinct hybridized population with distinct genetic and phenotypic characteristics (undeniably so in terms of health, but most significantly in terms of behavior.) From this perspective, bans on miscegenation can then be considered a way of encouraging speciation and the preservation of distinct genetic and phenotypic characteristics in a population.

[3]On which see David Epstein, The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance (Penguin, 2013).

[4]See for instance, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Free Press, 1994).

[5]Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (Harper & Brothers, 1944).

[6]Sadly, little has changed concerning Black Americans and infectious diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection observes: “Blacks/African Americans account for a higher proportion of new HIV diagnoses, those living with HIV, and those ever diagnosed with AIDS, compared to other races/ethnicities. In 2015, African Americans accounted for 45% of HIV diagnoses, though they comprise 12% of the US population.” Source: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/racialethnic/africanamericans/index.html

[7]The relevant data was most memorably compiled in J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (Transaction Books, 1995).

Harari seems extremely interested in U.S. affairs and curiousliy disinterested in Israel affairs.
It has been quite typical for modern Ashkenazi Jews to support a kind of “evolutionary humanism” (which implies a very high position for Ashkenazi Jews). But all this doesn’t simply collide with Christianism but with traditional Judaism, too – even if Harari understandably prefers to attack Christianism.
A good New Year’s gift to your Christian relatives …

he talks of childless elites, without mentioning that he is a childless elitist…being a homosexual married to a man…As regards his assertion that more developed societies provide niches for imbeciles….well, again, case in point, his own tenured professorship would seem to fit that profile 🙂
A much better book on the topic is Nicholas Wade’s ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’

I often despair when I see the image of the ‘Neanderthal child’ which is clearly and unambiguosly labeled on several websites a Cro-magnon/ Neanderthal mix from Gibraltar, where the last known Neanderthal population is said to have survived as late as 30,000 years ago and where like the middle east (in the vicinity of israel) early modern humans and Neanderthals interbred. If you look at the protruding lip area with the bow shaped upper lips and the eyes with thier vacant flighty stare these clearly archaic facial features are still found in human populations today.

‘He elsewhere points out the maladaptive nature of childless elites, such as the Catholic priesthood’

‘and pokes fun at the Pope for being a curiously barren alpha male’

and yet this exact institution is the literal bedrock of the western european high trust societies which managed to turn zero-sum pagan societies where the top alpha male got all of the women into more reproductively egalitarian societies which could sucessfully scale up thier institutions and come to dominate the rest of the world. How are the Arabs who have had religiously sanctioned concubinage for 1400 years doing? ok the Arabs are not exatcly intellectual heavyweights, how about the Turks? who had the Ottoman empire for 800 years? yeah exactly

I really hope the author (of the book not the article) just stays in israel then at least he wont be a hypocrite and have to come to the west to boost his career.

(Mod. Note: Mr. Henderson, you must be new here. Comments are not intended to try the patience of readers by subjecting them to THIS MUCH. In future comments, limit yourself to saying what you want to say in at most 20% of the length of this comment, or it won’t be approved. Feel free to comment often, and remember what they say about Brevity and Wit. Thanks.)

——-

The most potent of human behavioural triggers are racial differences for they exercise the strongest control over the group in a territory where different racial groups exist. Race trumps ethnicity where the ethnic clash is one of people of the same race but different ethnicities. Place a significant population of a different race into a territory where ethnicity rather than race is the cause of unrest and the ethnic factions of the same race will tend to unite against those of a different race.

Nothing demonstrates the natural tendency of human beings to remain racially distinct than the remarkably low rate of inter-racial breeding even in circumstances where there is every opportunity for it, most particularly in the great cities of Western Europe and North America, where the populations are increasingly varied and the prevailing elite ideology positively encouraging of such liaisons.

Even societies which have had very racially mixed populations for a long time display a remarkable ability to maintain retain racial distinctions over very long periods of time – Brazil is an excellent example of this, with social class being very much graded by skin colour. To argue that racial difference is not important to the choice of a mate is as absurd as arguing that the attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the choice of a mate.

In Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner cite a study made of a US dating site (the full story is on pp 80-84). The site is one of the largest in the US and the data examined covered 30,000 people equally divided between San Diego and Boston. Most were white but there was a substantial minority of non-white subjects.

The questionnaire the would-be daters had to fill in included a question choice on race as “same as mine” and “doesn’t matter”. The study compared the responses by white would-be daters (those from non-white were not analysed) to these questions with the race of the emails actually sent soliciting a date. The result in Levitt and Dubner’s words was:

“Roughly half of the white women on the site and 80 percent of the white men declared that race didn’t matter to them. But the response data tell a different story The white men who said that race didn’t matter sent 90 percent of their e-mail queries to white women. The white women who said race didn’t matter sent about 97 percent of their e-mail queries to white men.

“Is it possible that race really didn’t matter for these white women and men and that they simply never happened to browse a non-white date that interested them?”

Or, more likely, did they say that race didn’t matter because they wanted to come across especially to potential mates of their own race as open-minded?” In short, around 99% of all the women and 94% of all men in the sample were not willing to seek a date of a different race. How much stronger will be the tendency to refuse to breed with a mate of a different race?

Another way of testing the desire to remain racially separate is to look at social class and inter-racial breeding. The higher up the social scale a person is the less likely they are to have a partner of a different race – if you doubt this try to find examples of the rich and powerful who have a partner of a different race. Those who have the most choice overwhelmingly choose members of their own racial type, despite the fact that they have the protection of their wealth and position to shield their spouses and children from the effects of racial discrimination.

The experience of imperial Rome nicely demonstrates racial exclusiveness as a historical phenomenon. Despite the racially mixed population, all the evidence we have suggests that Romans of higher social status (the only Romans we have any substantial knowledge of as individuals) rarely took non-white mates (the same applies today: in white-majority countries the higher the status of whites, the less likely they are to have a non-white partner.) Even the Bible has the story of Moses choosing a black wife and meeting with resistance on the part of his people. (Numbers chapter 12)

If sexual desire will not commonly override the natural disinclination to remain racially separate nothing will.

The fact that humans have external racial differences which are sufficiently distinct to allow people throughout the world to broadly categorise an individual into categories such as white and black is in itself indicative of the innate human tendency to breed with those who are racially similar, even though for several thousands of years large human populations of different racial types have existed in close proximity. If human beings did not have an innate preference for those who racially resemble themselves, humanity would have bred itself into something approaching a uniform racial type, at least in those parts of the world which were not very isolated – different races have had regular and numerous contact with each other for at least three thousand years. The alternative explanation to an innate tendency is the truly fantastic one that Man everywhere spontaneously developed cultural barriers to breeding which had nothing to do with any innate tendency. If anything is a social construct it is not race but the liberal idea that Man is a single species.

Race is much stronger as a mediator of who to mate with than ethnic (cultural) difference – think of the very high proportion of those in Britain who have Irish/Welsh?/Scottish/English mixed ancestry. Nonetheless, ethnic differences are culturally potent amongst racially similar populations. For example, on either side of the England/Scotland border, the inhabitants born and raised close to the border retain Scots and English accents even though they may have lived their entire lives only a few miles apart.

Because the tendency to mate with those of a similar race is so strong and universal, both in place and time, it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour is innate and that cultures necessarily include the requirement for a member of the society to be of a certain racial type. The consequence of this is that someone of a different racial type is effectively precluded from full integration because one of the criteria for belonging has not been met. That is not to say, of course, that many of the habits of mind of an alien culture may not be adopted by someone of a different race. What is withheld is the instinctive acceptance of the alien and his or her descendants as members of the society. Just as no human being can decide for themselves that they are a member of this or that group, no individual can decide that they belong to this or that nation because it is a two-way process: the other members of the group they wish to join have to accept them as a true member of the group. (Stephen Frears the English film director once wryly remarked that he had known the actor Daniel Day-Lewis “before he was Irish”).

There are also other plausible reasons why inter-racial breeding is rare. There is a widespread biological behaviour known as assortative mating. Members of sexually reproducing animals select mates by certain criteria. In that much loved laboratory animal, the fruit fly drosophila, this may be the number of sternopleural bristles; in Man it includes many criteria including racial type. Other human prime assortative criteria are size, intelligence, education and class. Some of these criteria such as education and class are more clearly linked to nurture than Nature, but even they can be direct or indirect expressions of qualities which are at least largely innate such as intelligence. I say direct or indirect because the beneficial qualities may not be in the individual, for those with superior education and high social class may lack the innate qualities of their parents or earlier ancestors and their privileged position may simply be a residue of the superior innate abilities of their parents or other ancestors.

For the purposes of inter-racial mating, size, intelligence, education and class all come into play. There are clear average differences of size between the three major races: blacks largest, whites in the middle and Asians smallest. This would mean that on average members of one racial group would be less likely to choose another member of another racial group. The differences in IQ would have the same effect, with blacks being far less likely to mate with the other two races because their IQ is further removed from them than they are from each other. Differences in IQ will also be reflected, directly or indirectly in educational achievement and social class and hence in mating, for example, if a minority population of blacks amidst a majority white population have proportionately more people of low education and low social class than the white majority, something which should happen other things being equal because of their inferior IQ distribution, they are less likely to mate with members of the white majority simply on the grounds of education and class.

What about genetic diversity the reader may be asking themselves, should not the great benefits of that drive people of different races to mate whenever they can? This widespread view is unsurprising because as far as the layman is concerned one of the great “truths” of modern biology is that diversity is good because genetic diversity within a species reputably protects the species from the effects of harmful recessive genes by reducing the chance of both partners in a successful mating having a particular recessive gene, while general organic diversity in an environment is supposed to ensure the stability and endurance of the environment.

One does not need to have any deep grasp of genetics to see there is a logical problem with the idea that genetic diversity within a species is a sine qua non of evolutionary success. The genetic relatedness of breeding pairs in many species must of necessity be close because the opportunities to breed are limited. In the case of Homo Sapiens this has been true of most human beings throughout history. Man in his primitive state lived in small nomadic bands which were sparsely spread across the landscape Tribal peoples commonly exchange members (normally women) between tribes, but again that is a local exchange. Even in more advanced societies most people have lived in small settled communities and have mated with people who come from the same locality. Very closely related human beings are substantially more prone to genetic disaster if they mate, but the level of genetic diversity required to reduce the number of genetic disasters to a level in which they are not seriously harmful to the group is clearly not vast.

A small gene pool may even have advantages. Ashkenazi Jews come from what was originally a small population group (some estimates put it as low as 500) which married almost entirely within the group and continued to do so down the generations. They have an abnormally high average IQ – six times as many Ashkenazim as Europeans have IQs of 140+. In June 2005 the Journal of Biosocial Science carried a paper by a team at the University of Utah which put forward the theory that their exceptionally high average IQ exists because of natural selection. They argued that Ashkenazi Jews had had been selected them for high IQ because historically Jews in Europe were denied many opportunities for employment and they were driven into high IQ occupations such as banking. Rushton Revisted http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6c9fe76b-f1

That racial type should be a requirement for inclusion within a “tribe” is unsurprising. All social animals have to have boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation was within their species or at least within those members of the species with whom they interact.

Where does “must operate within a hierarchy” come from? First the observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies – although these vary considerably in form – and human beings always produce hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city.

Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal, even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on. Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species, sex.

In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being more successful.

When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation of different social niches into which individuals fit.

Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are built on the differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches within the group.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be constant conflict within the group because no individual would have cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm and such fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary animal than the social one.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social animals. Social animals are ultimately descended from asocial animals. The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on until we reach the ultimate social animal: Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be modified. That modification will only come through natural selection working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and possession of language place them in another category of being? Could Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to decide that human beings cannot do it and to conclude that the forming of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can be added another, the dominance/submission behaviour which every person witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

13 An analogy with computers

In assessing what Man is, an analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

Your assertion that blacks are bigger than Europeans is very dubious. Which blacks are you talking about? Which whites are you talking about? As for your statement that Ashkenazi Jews are six times as likely to have an IQ of over 140. What are your sources? Also, if you are going to compare a subsect of one group, you must compare them to an equally small subsect of the other group. Like Ashkenazi Jews to Swedes or Northern Italians or Swiss Germans.

For what it’s worth, I often enjoy reading long comments and I like this one. Often the comments are better than the article: that’s one of the pleasures of sites like this and an upside of an ‘intellectual’ Movement, in that we have our own intelligent commentariat.

Also, people can choose whether or not to read comments, and can ignore as they wish. I see no problem with mini-essays, especially when, as here, they add to what has been written.

For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

It is hard to unravel association and causation here. An omelet that’s unscramble-able, maybe. I’d say that the structure of any language is the result, not the cause, of limitations in thinking. The living conditions (biology/environment) were in place for aeons and the language surely must have developed at the same time. Mind you, in the English-speaking world, style of speech is now being manipulated from elsewhere and imposed on the population as a whole through mainstream media, educational institutions, entertainment, etc.

I don’t mind long comments if they are well written, even when I disagree. But of course, if I agree, so much the better…

Yuval Hararis’ book, Sapiens, which I’ve read, had the same gut wrenching effect on me as watching Justin Trudeaus’ performances, even though one bile producer comes from the right and the other from the left. His unfounded claim that hunter/gatherers lived longer and healthier lives than the proceeding more advanced horticulturalists plays into the push for acceptance of vile factory farms which are very profitable for the corporate farmers, taking up much less ‘valuable’ space in an era of overpopulation. The Algonquin peoples, hunter/gatherers, lived brutal and short lives compared to the Iroquois peoples who settled the land, Canadas’ first farmers.
Yuval Hararis’ promotion of a technologially advanced world dominated by a (((small rootless international elite))) epitomizes the rise of the Golem, the Archonic victory over Life and Nature. Charles Brooker, White man, put it on the screen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHjIXCCHh3s&t=119s

I think Harari’s contradictory opinions can be explained by the simple fact that he is a Jew and therefore is motivated by his ethnic interests, which is a suspicion we always should have when dealing with Jewish intellectuals.

Jews are characterized, so I have concluded, by two main traits : supremacism and paranoia. As supremacists Jews believe that their imagined intellectual and moral superiority entitles them to all the wealth and power of the world. There are passages in the Old Testament that say as much (e.g. Isaiah 60), but other Jewish scriptures (Talmud, Kabbalah), and even modern Jewish rabbis repeat the same idea. Because of their consistent anti-Gentile behavior throughout history inspired by these supremacist ideas, Jews have incurred the wrath of the nations among whom they lived and they had to endure frequent persecutions. Thus they also developed a strong sense of paranoia. The contradictory combination of supremacism and paranoia is present in the general Jewish character and I think also here offers an explanation for Harari’s own contradictory ideas.

On the one hand as a supremacist Harari believes in superiority-through-evolution with no concern for morality. Thus he is able to describe National Socialism accurately without condemning it (because he secretly admires it), but instead of German supremacy he aspires to Jewish supremacy. That is the real meaning of the passage :

“This book has a dark side however. Harari is an advocate not just of empire, but of world-empire, and his work is ultimately an apology for a technologically-advanced world dominated by a small, rootless international elite.”

That “small, rootless international elite” is of course no other than the Jewish people itself (already by Stalin called “rootless cosmopolitans”).

On the other hand as a paranoid Jew Harari fears persecution of Jews, especially of the racial kind, which Jews have learned to fear since WW II. Thus Harari feels the need to combat racism by denying any racial inequality through separate evolution. What is more, he even denies real differences between the sexes. These are all “social constructs”. This is of course pure Cultural Marxism, a pseudo-science Jews have developed to weaken their host populations in the diaspora.

Harari’s endgame is a “world-empire” controlled by a “small rootless international elite”, i.e. final Jewish world domination. Hence Harari’s support for amoral Darwinist ideas. Until that time, persecution of Jews must be avoided, hence Harari’s contradictory support for cultural Marxist ideas.

Once the Jewish character of supremacism-cum-paranoia is understood, Harari’s contradictory ideas become much more explainable.

Standard-issue behavior: tell a bunch of truth to lure us in and nod our heads approvingly, setting us up to gobble the entire nest of lies that follows. What childish chicanery. Try something new, already.

Barkingmad, I hope my full support of your statement will count for something, as well. And yet, I am a little confused as to the target of your, so succinct, analysis. Is it the (((book))) or the (((article))) or both? I hope it is ‘both’.

@Tim. Thanks for agreeing with me. My wrath was directed at the author of Sapiens. As to Durocher, his review should have been about 1/20th as long as it was.

His review should have stopped here: This book has a dark side however. Harari is an advocate not just of empire, but of world-empire, and his work is ultimately an apology for a technologically-advanced world dominated by a small, rootless international elite.

Why go any further? After he saw the stamp of approval of Bill Gates, Bongo, Jared Diamond, Zuckerburg and others of their kind, he should have got the message that this was propaganda of the most obscene sort. And yet the reviewer describes Sapiens as a very interesting book. Interesting how? For its few accuracies coiled inside a mountain of bilge? Feh.

Idk the science of behavioral genetics is becoming well known।।People in positions of power often say certain things, power demands action, to avoid certain actions. If blacks are more criminally prone, and less intelligent it makes sense to remove them।।If not politically viable, you avoid the subject or parrot liberal talking points. I don’t think Zuckercuck or others are as stupid as they let on. They just don’t have the will or desire to do these things as they’re just man children. Blood shows its pedigree।।

We debase ourselves when we entertain the blatherings of a JEW. The Devil himself also mixes truth with his lies. Western man and Christianity has always concerned itself with discovering ultimate truths. That is why westerners through our technology, music, and philosophy came to dominate the planet. Jews , for all their self promotion cannot lay claim to the university or any other institutions which sought the betterment of mankind. What sort
of foo or liar l would assert that a woman’s role as mother it is arbitrary ? No wonder the likes of Zuckerberg the uberthief endorse this clown. It’s not worth wasting our short lives ingesting his followers. The best thing any professor taught me wss: Consider the (((source)))!

“We debase ourselves when we entertain the blatherings of a JEW. The Devil himself also mixes truth with his lies. Western man and Christianity has always concerned itself with discovering ultimate truths. That is why westerners through our technology, music, and philosophy came to dominate the planet. ”

No offense intended, Grauhund, but I have come to deny this attribution of White accomplishment as an inherent and UNIQUE superiority. Many cultures “have had their day”, of superior accomplishment and high achievement. The Chinese, The Nabboteans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, The Northern Kingdoms of India. Europe had its run, ITS TURN. Now it is dissolving, as all other once great civilizations have done.

Many great achievements were accomplished by Western Man, due in large part to inherent and INHERITED knowledge, method, and philosophical framework from previous eons. While we concern ourselves with empirical and concrete accomplishments, these are a sub-set of HIGHER THOUGHT PROCESSES. By this I mean primarily inventions and discoveries were properly introduced and incorporated into the general commonweal. That is a vector of diminishing value, unless one believes that a Borg or Matrix society is a higher ideal.

Likewise Christianity. To me it is a zero sum; the positive equals the negative and bequeaths us the equivalent of a basket full of spare parts of a dissembled machine, incomplete and worn. Like machinery and machinery systems, yesterday’s equipment just won’t cut it anymore. Too many failures, materially, and poor performance. Bluntly: Christianity is unreliable and randomly fails causing damage and vexation. Christianity to me is akin to cast iron and pot metal at the mercy of salt water corrosion.

Knowledge without wisdom is the hallmark of our Age, and has contributed greatly if not the most to the Decline Of The West, which is very much the same as the Graveyard Spin of a Stalled Airplane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_spiral

FYI All the peoples that you mention who have had their day with the exception of the Chinese were White (Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Phoenicians) or light skinned Caucasians (Northern Indian Kingdoms and Nabboteans).

V. K.-Thank you for that solid and valid point. I have been pointing out the erroneous thinking among many Western Europeans, who mistakenly call themselves “Aryan” and “White”. The first term is an emotive one, imprecise, phantasmagorical, and escapist for “Germanic” and “Nordic” people. Blond hair, blue eyes, and big busts on women seem to be the requisites for admission. “White” is practically useless. Who are my pure European descended Brazilian family, if they resided here in Amurka? Latinos? Who are pure European (usually Iberian descended people here in America? Latinos, Hispanics? Ambivalence, ambiguity, and dissociation of a word from its concrete assignee are the signs of sloppy thinking, and whimsy.

We Europeans are more precisely classified as Indo-Europeans, the subset of Western Indo-Europeans-all a subset of Proto-Indo-Europeans. The Proto IEs appeared around Northwest India, spread into Northern India (N.B. the total European appearances of many Northern Indian prominent personages, easily accessed in Indian movie)s. From there, through conquest and migration and influence, these genes now flow through the majority of Europeans. These people brought many advances to the more primitive hunter gather tribes in Western Europe.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lGF_QeXeg

This soirée into a greater understanding, clarity and veritas (vincit amnia veritas: truth conquers all things is purposed to replace whimsy, caprice, magical thinking, and clutching to never true but convenient agenda driven beliefs and declarations. In a manner of speaking, this is the difference between an actual adult and a lesser formed individual.

Johannes Krause is Professor of Archaeology and Paleogenetics at the University of Tübingen and Director of the Max Plank Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena. His work is integrative, incorporating genetic, archeological, linguistic, cultural, societal, and other SCIENTIFIC AND EMPIRICAL data and hypotheses into the comprehensive story of human history.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk65TbJRN_A
I doubt if any readers here could spend better time than to watch and digest these video lectures. Unless, of course, you are interested in propagating teorie e idee di flatulenza e aria curva.

This strong EVIDENCE (NOT PROOF) of the commonality of Indo-Europeans, atomizes the _______ theories of “racial purists”, and their _______ “chiffon in the wind” agendas. Only hard truth and intellectual rigor will restore IE to prominence and numbers. Not escapism and jive assed yammerings.
For more videos visit http://www.latestthinking.org Different ethnic groups have shaped the genetic makeup of today’s Europeans.

I second it. Anything, created by jews is deadly to our people. I do not need or want a jew to tell me what to think. It always has the same ending.

Question to the Editor: ‘Please, explain what motivates you to publish it here?. You, more than most, are aware that it is just another piece of the jewish group strategy, so what is your purpose of including this, and other alike, article? and please do not give me the predictable answer that we need to be aware of what (((they))) think and say, because we don’t, we already are.’

I incline to the brilliant and under-appreciated thesis of Daniel Amneus, that father-headed families are the real engine of progress, and it is this that enabled neoteny–the long childhood unique to humankind. That the author of Sapiens is a Jew is not the issue. The issue is that biology is inadequate as an explanation for human behavior. Social relations and language–and fathers: these are what is important.

I am waiting for the ‘history of humankind’ tome that will factor in the hybrid genetics of the pre-Flood race of the giants and their Rephaim bloodlines. There has been a massive cover-up of the ancient world by top institutions who want the bones, artifacts and technology of the pre-Flood world.

No one who has stood on the Altiplano of Peru and Boliva or at Baalbek or ancient Sardis or Sardinia would leave the hybrid race of giants out of the historical narrative.

https://www.amazon.ca/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/product-reviews/077103850X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1&filterByStar=critical
These reviews of Harari’s agenda- driven attempt to summarize, mainly through speculation, humankinds journey over the past 70,000 years brings up the question as to why Sapiens is being touted to the same ridiculous extent that Portnoys Complaint once was. Will Durant spent 50 years writing his impressive 11 volume Story of Civilization yet humbly apologized that due to the magnitude of his undertaking, it was imperfect. Arnold Toynbee’s 12 volume A Study of History has been tossed into the dustbin of history due to his ‘anti-semitism’ in calling Jewish culture a fossil and questioning the validity of Israel. Ironically we now have a 494 page MacHistory of humankind, over one million copies sold, written by a homosexual Israeli Jew. Toynbee’s rolling over in his grave, and I’ve pulled Laurence Waddell’s Makers of Civilization in Race and History off of the shelf, to reread as consolation.

It is painful to note that Harari has a good side: concern for animal welfare. Every racial group treats animals as if they are as sensate as bicycle parts but it sure can cause some distress when you can find something highly agreeable about someone who, though’ll he never admit it, has it in for you.

But in any case, as far as I can see, white people were the first to institute animal protection laws though they don’t go far enough.

Mahatma Ghandi, did you say? That is how pedophiliacs are made “heroes”.

How do you ask? By attributing some retarded quotes to degenerates by useful idiots.

Next time you bring up the name of Ghandi it better be in the context child abuse among others, or deep hatred towards lower classes.

BTW. The only reason that Mahatma Ghandi died of old age was that British were not Chinese Communists or (((Russian Bolsheviks))). If they were he would have gotten a bullet in a head as opposed to great Western education in Great Briton.

Yuval is too smart and knowledgeable to believe that stuff about ‘negligible’ differences among races. Just look at Israel. Even among Jews, Ashkenazi Jews do so much better than other kinds of Jews. Ethiopian Jews are hardly successful in Israel. Also, what may be ‘negligible’ in genetic terms can have huge repercussions in the social realm. For instance, Albert Einstein and Mike Tyson are fundamentally alike in that both have four limbs, walk upright, use language, can smile, can cry, and etc. Both have all the basic attributes of humanness. But the ‘negligible’ differences means that Einstein can figure out the laws of the universe whereas Tyson can barely finish school, and Tyson can be world champion in boxing whereas Einstein could hardly beat up a woman.

Why does Yuval refuse to address white-black differences based on genetics? Jewish Supremacism relies on White Submissivism. As smart and rich as Jews are, they cannot rule the world without white gentile support. Jewish virility feeds on White servility. It’s like the British couldn’t rule India without the support of Indian collaborators. Once Indians refused to serve British Imperialism, the Anglo supremacist elites in India were doomed. In order for Brits to remain supreme in India, the Indians had to put Queen & Country above Indian identity and interests. And of course, the Brits played divide-and-rule among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and various castes. Diversity made it possible for Brits to rule for a long time. It was difficult for diverse Indians to come together… but when they finally did, the Brits were finished in India. Likewise, Jews push diversity in gentile nations to play divide-and-rule among gentiles.

Jewish attitude toward whites is like British Imperialist attitude toward Asian-Indians.
Jews simply don’t have the numbers to rule the world. Even with all their money, 13 million Jews cannot rule 6 billion people around the world. So, Jews need a vast support network, and this main support comes from white gentiles. And in order for white gentiles to keep obeying and serving Jews, they must be made to feel White Guilt rather than White Pride. If whites feel pride in their own identity, they will pursue their own racial interests & agendas that may even run counter to Jewish agenda. So, Jews need to perpetuate White Submissivism in order to maintain Jewish Supremacism. Jews need white cucks to support Zionism and Jewish interests. If whites won’t cuck, they are attacked as ‘nazi’ or ‘white supremacist’ by these Jewish Supremacists. Because Jews run the media, Jewish Supremacism is spun as ‘progressivism’ whereas the mere statement “It’s Okay to be White” is condemned as ‘white supremacist’, ‘hate’, and ‘nazi’.

Blacks are useful for Jews in maintaining the cult of white guilt. By invoking slave trade and Jim Crow, Jews fill whites with white guilt. (Never mind that Jews like Rothchilds financed much of British imperialism and slave trade. Never mind Jews were the main sellers of opium to China, thereby turning countless Chinese into mind-slaves of a terrible drug.) If Jews like Yuval acknowledge the reality of racial differences, white guilt will fade because whites will realize that black failures in school and economics are due to lower intelligence, greater psychopathy, and more impulsive behavior among blacks. (The corollary to this is black success in sports is due to harder muscles and faster speed. Whites did everything to suppress black success in sports in the past, but blacks came to dominate in the end cuz genetics favored them. And black success in ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs is due to black men having bigger dongs than white men. Jungle Fever or interracism is due to racial differences. These differences are significant because it influences white women’s decisions in childbirth. Because white women notice racial differences in sex, they reject white seed from their wombs and take black seed. Interracism is racism because it’s all about making choices based on perception of racial differences. And Jews in sex industry push the image & narrative of black male superiority in manhood.) In order to sustain the cult of White Guilt, Jews must push the BS that there are no genetic differences between whites and blacks. So, any sign of social failure among blacks is due to white ‘racism’. That keeps White Guilt going since the PC narrative says whatever is wrong with blacks is due to white historical crimes.

If whites feel guilt, then they cannot be proud of white identity and can’t have white interests. Since whites feel shame for being white, they can only earn a bit of pride by serving another race that is deemed holy and noble. And this is where Jews step in as the Holy Holocaust People. By supporting and serving Jews, whites feel that they can wash away some of their sins, though the stain will never go away. Since white guilt is forever, whites must forever serve Jews.
This is why Yuval pretends there are no racial differences between whites and blacks. it’s to serve Jewish supremacism.

So, Jewish supremacism feeds on White submissivism. And ironically, Jewish supremacists demean as ‘supremacist’ any sign of pride or interest among whites.
Jews cannot rule America and the world without guilt-ridden whites sucking up to them.

I bet there’s way, way more than 13 million Jews. There’s probably more than that just in the US. They hide their numbers. They seem to be everywhere. I don;t think they can be as many places as they are with the numbers they claim.

Of the most important recent books on anthrogenesis I know of none that treat regional differences with anything but ignorance of, if not aversion to the topic. This, of course, was not always the case as we see from the demonization of 19th century anthropology by 20th century anthropology.

We can, of course revisit 19th century anthropology to try to recover some semblance of reality. We can also avail ourselves of the explosion in bioinformatics.

But there have also been some advances in understanding the evolution of eusociality in the primate line starting with CHLCA 6Mybp and, most importantly for Euroman, the evolution of individualism starting not only 40kybp, but also with fire-making cultures many times older.

It is diagnostic of our malaise that the aspects fire making discussed by recent anthropogenesists studiously ignore the obvious fact that a young man capable of making fire would be more independent. Instead, all we get from the likes of E. O. Wilson, Y. N. Harari and S. Herculano-Houzel is discussion of how fire made our brains grow through bioenergetics and higher demands on social cognition. The latter is emphasized by E. O. Wilson as a pivotal moment in hominid evolution toward eusocial organization — without recognizing it had a bifurcating, individuating, consequence as well.

None of them deal with the lower population densities of low insolation environments, of course, so it would be far too great a demand on their meager intellectual resources to ask them to think about Euroman’s coevolution with wolf packs, replacing the human hunting pack’s eusocial evolution with a nuclear family’s hunter commanding his dogs.

Of course, we needn’t rely on the intellectual cowards for the self-understanding necessary for Euroman to not only survive but thrive.

“…There is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. Survival in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone…”

Just a thought. I keep seeing this type of logic but have any of the hunter gatherers we’ve come upon been geniuses? Uh, no they haven’t so why is it we say that they must have been earlier in our history? I don’t dispute that some have had bigger brains but maybe it was for another reason.

Another thought. The Jews look like Neanderthals. The Jews have spent a great deal of time and money claiming that any study of physiology of humans has any bearing on the nature of those humans. Possible coincidence????

Our Lord already laid out the game plan of the Jews. Read the parable of the wicked husbandmen. They think they are a collective messiah that will rule the universe in place of Jesus Christ. “Here is the heir. Let’s kill him and the vineyard will be ours.” Insanity. Complete narcissistic, insanity.